Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35687174›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2022

Spectrum and resistance in bacterial infections of the ocular surface in a German tertiary referral center 2009-2019.

Mathias Roth, Paul Goerke, Christoph Holtmann, Andreas Frings, Colin R MacKenzie, Gerd Geerling

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mathias RothDepartment of Ophthalmology, Heinrich-Heine University Duesseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany. mathias.roth@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1993-1289
Paul GoerkeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Heinrich-Heine University Duesseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Christoph HoltmannDepartment of Ophthalmology, Heinrich-Heine University Duesseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Andreas FringsDepartment of Ophthalmology, Heinrich-Heine University Duesseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Colin R MacKenzieInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hospital Hygiene of the University Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Gerd GeerlingDepartment of Ophthalmology, Heinrich-Heine University Duesseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEDüsseldorf University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAim of this study was to evaluate the frequencies, trends, and antibiotic resistance of bacteria collected from ocular surface or contact lens material in a German tertiary referral center from 2009 to 2019.

methodsMicrobiological data from 2009 to 2019 was analyzed. Culture-dependent microbial identification and analysis of antibiotic sensitivity was completed by the Institute of Microbiology. Statistical analysis of age- and sex-specific differences as well as changes in the microbial spectrum and resistance over the study period was performed with GraphPad Prism 9.0 applying nonparametric tests (level of significance: p ≦ 0.05).

resultsA total of 6361 specimens were analyzed. Positivity rate was 18.6%. Sixty-three percent (n = 680) of the bacterial isolates were derived from ocular surface and 37% (n = 399) from contact lens material. The ratio of gram-negative bacteria was significantly higher in contact lens material. Multiresistant bacteria showed a significant increase with patient age (p < 0.0001). An overall increase in resistance to levofloxacin (p = 0.0239) was detected. Only 2.4% and 3.1% isolates were resistant to a combination of moxifloxacin and gentamicin, respectively, levofloxacin and gentamicin.

conclusionsThe reported bacterial spectrum is similar to comparable centers. Our data show that it should not be assumed that the newest classes of antibiotics have the best efficacy or lowest resistance levels. In suspected bacterial conjunctivitis, we propose using gentamicin as first-line therapy. In therapy refractive cases and in involvement of the cornea, we recommend a combination of gentamicin and ofloxacin or moxifloxacin. Overall, the evaluated organisms showed good sensitivity to the regularly used antibiotics.

Indexed as

Eye Infections, BacterialLevofloxacinAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaDrug Resistance, BacterialFemaleGentamicinsHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMoxifloxacinRetrospective StudiesTertiary Care CentersAnti-Bacterial AgentsGentamicinsLevofloxacinMoxifloxacinAntibiotic resistancesBacterial spectrumConjunctivitisContact lensKeratitisOcular surface

Identifiers

PMID35687174
PMCPMC9666293
OpenAlexW4281891325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.